Wednesday, April 30, 2025

What is Pathway ETL/RAG

Pathway RAG refers to the integration of Pathway, a Python data processing framework, with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines. RAG is a technique that enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by connecting them to external knowledge bases, enabling them to generate more accurate and contextually relevant responses. Pathway facilitates RAG by providing a platform to index and update data in real-time, ensuring that LLMs always have access to the most up-to-date information. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Pathway:

Pathway is a Python framework designed for real-time data processing, stream processing, and RAG pipelines.

It allows users to build and manage data pipelines, including those used for ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) and RAG processes.

Pathway is used by companies like F1 teams and those dealing with sensitive data, highlighting its robust capabilities.

It provides features like data indexing for live updates, data transformations over streams, and retrieval of structured and unstructured data.

Pathway also offers an easy-to-use Python API, making it simple to integrate with other Python ML libraries. 

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation):

RAG is a technique that augments LLMs with external knowledge sources, allowing them to access information beyond their training data.

This enhances the accuracy and relevance of LLM responses by grounding them in a specific knowledge base.

A typical RAG pipeline involves ingesting documents, pre-processing them, generating embeddings, storing them in a vector database, and then querying the database to retrieve relevant information for the LLM to generate a response.

RAG helps address issues like LLM hallucinations (generating incorrect information) and provides access to real-time data. 

Pathway and RAG:

By integrating Pathway with RAG, users can build RAG pipelines that dynamically update their knowledge base with live data. 

This ensures that LLMs are always using the most current information, making the responses more accurate and relevant. 

Pathway's data indexing capabilities and real-time data processing features are crucial for building RAG pipelines that can handle constantly evolving data sources. 

Pathway also provides tools like the LLM Xpack, which offers pre-built components for working with LLMs, including auto-updating vector stores and RAG pipelines. 

Pathway can be integrated with other data frameworks like LlamaIndex to create RAG applications. 


references:

https://pathway.com/developers/user-guide/introduction/first_realtime_app_with_pathway/

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Simple fusion retriever, how does it work?

First of all, this works with LLM as it tries to generate the question 

import os

import openai


os.environ["OPENAI_API_KEY"] = "sk-..."

openai.api_key = os.environ["OPENAI_API_KEY"]


from llama_index.core import SimpleDirectoryReader


documents_1 = SimpleDirectoryReader(

    input_files=["../../community/integrations/vector_stores.md"]

).load_data()

documents_2 = SimpleDirectoryReader(

    input_files=["../../module_guides/storing/vector_stores.md"]

).load_data()


from llama_index.core import VectorStoreIndex


index_1 = VectorStoreIndex.from_documents(documents_1)

index_2 = VectorStoreIndex.from_documents(documents_2)



Fuse the Indexes!

In this step, we fuse our indexes into a single retriever. This retriever will also generate augment our query by generating extra queries related to the original question, and aggregate the results.


This setup will query 4 times, once with your original query, and generate 3 more queries.


By default, it uses the following prompt to generate extra queries:


QUERY_GEN_PROMPT = (

    "You are a helpful assistant that generates multiple search queries based on a "

    "single input query. Generate {num_queries} search queries, one on each line, "

    "related to the following input query:\n"

    "Query: {query}\n"

    "Queries:\n"

)



from llama_index.core.retrievers import QueryFusionRetriever


retriever = QueryFusionRetriever(

    [index_1.as_retriever(), index_2.as_retriever()],

    similarity_top_k=2,

    num_queries=4,  # set this to 1 to disable query generation

    use_async=True,

    verbose=True,

    # query_gen_prompt="...",  # we could override the query generation prompt here

)


nodes_with_scores = retriever.retrieve("How do I setup a chroma vector store?")



references:

https://docs.llamaindex.ai/en/stable/examples/retrievers/simple_fusion/



Monday, April 28, 2025

What are various retrieval strategies in llama index

Core Retrieval Concepts in LlamaIndex

Before diving into specific techniques, it's essential to understand how LlamaIndex handles retrieval in a RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) pipeline:

Documents and Nodes: LlamaIndex represents your data as Document objects. These can be broken down into smaller chunks called Node objects, which are the units of retrieval.

Indices: LlamaIndex provides various index structures to organize your nodes for efficient retrieval.

Retrievers: These are the components responsible for fetching relevant nodes from an index based on a query.

Main Retrieval Techniques in LlamaIndex

LlamaIndex offers a rich set of retrieval techniques, which can be broadly categorized as follows:

Vector-based Retrieval:

Concept: Embed your queries and nodes into a vector space and retrieve the nearest neighbors.

LlamaIndex Implementation: VectorStoreIndex is the primary class. You can plug in different vector stores (e.g., Pinecone, Weaviate, Chroma) or use a simple in-memory one.

Variations/Enhancements:

Similarity Top-k Retrieval: Retrieves the top-k most similar nodes.

Self-Querying Retriever: The LLM helps to structure the query to filter metadata.

Contextual Compression: Compresses retrieved documents to the minimum context required

Keyword-based Retrieval:

Concept: Retrieve nodes based on keyword matches.

LlamaIndex Implementation: KeywordTableIndex

Use Cases: Useful when you need to find documents containing specific terms.

Graph-based Retrieval:

Concept: Represent your data as a graph and traverse it to find relevant information.

LlamaIndex Implementation: KnowledgeGraphIndex

Use Cases: Effective for retrieving information based on relationships between entities.

Tree-structured Retrieval

Concept: Organizes data in a tree structure, enabling hierarchical retrieval

LlamaIndex Implementation: TreeIndex

Use Cases: Good for documents with natural hierarchical structures.

Compositional Retrieval:

Concept: Combine multiple retrieval techniques to improve performance.

LlamaIndex Implementation:

Multi-Step Retrieval: Chain together different retrievers.

Router Retriever: Select the best retriever for a given query.

Key Improvements and Trends

LlamaIndex is continuously evolving. Some important trends and improvements include:

Hybrid Search: Combining vector search with keyword search for better precision and recall.

Metadata Filtering: Filtering retrieved nodes based on metadata to narrow down the search.

Query Transformations: Using LLMs to rewrite or augment queries to improve retrieval effectiveness.

This list provides a solid starting point for understanding retrieval in LlamaIndex. For the most up-to-date information, I recommend checking the official LlamaIndex documentation and tutorials, as the library is under active development.

What is OpenMP Library

OpenMP in a nutshell

OpenMP is a library for parallel programming in the SMP (symmetric multi-processors, or shared-memory processors) model. When programming with OpenMP, all threads share memory and data. OpenMP supports C, C++ and Fortran. The OpenMP functions are included in a header file called omp.h .

OpenMP program structure: An OpenMP program has sections that are sequential and sections that are parallel. In general an OpenMP program starts with a sequential section in which it sets up the environment, initializes the variables, and so on.


When run, an OpenMP program will use one thread (in the sequential sections), and several threads (in the parallel sections).


There is one thread that runs from the beginning to the end, and it's called the master thread. The parallel sections of the program will cause additional threads to fork. These are called the slave threads.


A section of code that is to be executed in parallel is marked by a special directive (omp pragma). When the execution reaches a parallel section (marked by omp pragma), this directive will cause slave threads to form. Each thread executes the parallel section of the code independently. When a thread finishes, it joins the master. When all threads finish, the master continues with code following the parallel section.


Each thread has an ID attached to it that can be obtained using a runtime library function (called omp_get_thread_num()). The ID of the master thread is 0.


Why OpenMP? More efficient, and lower-level parallel code is possible, however OpenMP hides the low-level details and allows the programmer to describe the parallel code with high-level constructs, which is as simple as it can get.


OpenMP has directives that allow the programmer to:


specify the parallel region

specify whether the variables in the parallel section are private or shared

specify how/if the threads are synchronized

specify how to parallelize loops

specify how the works is divided between threads (scheduling)

Compiling and running OpenMP code

The OpenMP functions are included in a header file called omp.h . The public linux machines dover and foxcroft have gcc/g++ installed with OpenMP support. All you need to do is use the -fopenmp flag on the command line:

gcc -fopenmp hellosmp.c  -o  hellosmp

It’s also pretty easy to get OpenMP to work on a Mac. A quick search with google reveals that the native apple compiler clang is installed without openmp support. When you installed gcc it probably got installed without openmp support. To test, go to the terminal and try to compile something:


gcc -fopenmp hellosmp.c  -o  hellosmp

If you get an error message saying that “omp.h” is unknown, that mans your compiler does not have openmp support.

hellosmp.c:12:10: fatal error: 'omp.h' file not found

#include 

         ^

1 error generated.

make: *** [hellosmp.o] Error 1


references:

https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~ltoma/teaching/cs3225-GIS/fall17/Lectures/openmp.html#:~:text=OpenMP%20is%20a%20library%20for,a%20header%20file%20called%20omp.

Sunday, April 20, 2025

What are the advantages of having a custom trained tokeniser

You are indeed training a Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) tokenizer using the tokenizers library. Training your own tokenizer on a specific corpus (like the WikiText-103 dataset in your case) offers several significant practical advantages over using a pre-trained tokenizer:

1. Improved Performance on Domain-Specific Text:

Vocabulary Tailoring: Pre-trained tokenizers are trained on large, general-purpose datasets (like Common Crawl, Wikipedia). If your application deals with a highly specialized domain (e.g., medical texts, legal documents, code, specific scientific fields), the vocabulary of a general-purpose tokenizer might not be optimal. It might break down domain-specific terms into smaller, less meaningful subwords.

Reduced Out-of-Vocabulary (OOV) Tokens: By training on your specific data, the tokenizer learns to recognize and represent domain-specific vocabulary directly, significantly reducing the number of "[UNK]" (unknown) tokens. Fewer "[UNK]" tokens mean the model has more complete information to work with, leading to better understanding and performance in downstream tasks like text classification, generation, or question answering within that domain.

2. Efficiency and Model Size:

Smaller Vocabulary Size: You can tailor the vocabulary size to the specific needs of your data. A general-purpose tokenizer often has a very large vocabulary to cover a wide range of language. If your domain has a more limited vocabulary, you can train a smaller tokenizer, which can lead to smaller model sizes and potentially faster inference times, especially for models that have an embedding layer tied to the vocabulary size.

Optimized Token Lengths: The BPE algorithm learns merges based on the frequency of byte pairs in your training data. This can result in token lengths that are more efficient for your specific text. For example, if certain multi-character sequences are very common in your corpus, they are more likely to be merged into single tokens, leading to shorter input sequences for your model.

3. Better Handling of Specific Characters and Symbols:

Unicode and Special Characters: If your data contains a significant amount of specific Unicode characters, symbols, or formatting that might not be well-represented in a general-purpose tokenizer's vocabulary, training your own ensures these are handled more effectively.

Code Tokenization: For tasks involving code, a tokenizer trained on code will be much better at segmenting code into meaningful units (keywords, variable names, operators) compared to a tokenizer trained primarily on natural language.

4. Data Privacy and Security:

Avoiding Reliance on External Resources: Training your own tokenizer keeps the entire data processing pipeline within your control. This can be important for applications with strict data privacy or security requirements where sending data to external services for tokenization might be a concern.

5. Custom Pre-processing:

Integration with Specific Pre-processing Steps: You can tailor the pre-tokenizer (like the Whitespace() you're using) and the training process to align perfectly with any specific pre-processing steps you are applying to your data.

In your specific case with WikiText-103:

Training a tokenizer on the WikiText-103 dataset would be beneficial if you were specifically working on tasks related to this dataset or similar general-purpose English text. It would ensure that the tokenizer is well-suited to the vocabulary and structure of Wikipedia articles.

In summary, training your own tokenizer provides a level of customization and optimization that can lead to improved performance, efficiency, and better handling of domain-specific characteristics in your natural language processing applications. While it requires an initial investment of time and data, the benefits can be significant, especially when dealing with specialized or privacy-sensitive text.

Saturday, April 19, 2025

K-Fold More detailed

 The KFold() function in scikit-learn is available in the sklearn.model_selection module.

Therefore, the correct answer is:

Is it correct to say that using the mean and standard deviation of the cross-validated score, we can expect the model performance to lie in the range of (mean - 2 *sd) to ( mean _ 2 * sd) with 95% confidence. 

Yes, it is generally correct to say that, with some important caveats and assumptions.

Here's a breakdown of why and the conditions under which it holds:

The Core Idea:

The statement relies on the properties of a normal distribution (also known as a Gaussian distribution). In a normal distribution:   


Approximately 68% of the data falls within one standard deviation (± 1 SD) of the mean.   

Approximately 95% of the data falls within two standard deviations (± 2 SD) of the mean.   

Approximately 99.7% of the data falls within three standard deviations (± 3 SD) of the mean.   

Applying it to Cross-Validation Scores:


When you perform K-Fold cross-validation, you obtain k different performance scores (e.g., accuracy, F1-score), one for each validation fold. These scores can be considered as samples from the distribution of the model's performance on unseen data.


If we assume that:


The distribution of the cross-validated scores is approximately normal. This is a crucial assumption and may not always hold true, especially with a small number of folds or if the data or model behavior is highly variable across folds.

The scores from each fold are reasonably independent. While not strictly independent (as they are derived from the same dataset), if the folds are sufficiently large and distinct, this assumption can be a reasonable approximation.

Then, the mean of these k scores provides an estimate of the "true" mean performance of the model, and the standard deviation of these scores quantifies the variability or uncertainty around this estimate.


Under these assumptions, the interval (mean - 2 * SD) to (mean + 2 * SD) would indeed represent an approximate 95% confidence interval for the model's expected performance on unseen data.


Important Caveats and Assumptions:


Normality Assumption: The distribution of cross-validated scores might not always be perfectly normal. Factors like a small number of folds, highly skewed data, or a model that behaves very differently on different subsets of the data can lead to non-normal distributions. In such cases, the 95% rule based on two standard deviations might not be accurate.

Independence Assumption: The scores from different folds are not strictly independent because they are all derived from the same original dataset. However, with a reasonable number of folds and a good shuffling strategy, this dependency is often considered acceptable for practical purposes.

Number of Folds (k): The accuracy of this approximation tends to improve with a larger number of folds. With a small k (e.g., k=2 or k=3), the sample size of scores is small, and the assumption of normality and the 95% rule might be less reliable.

The Nature of the Metric: The distribution of some performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, especially when close to 0 or 1) might be less likely to be normal than others (e.g., error rates).

Population vs. Sample: The mean and standard deviation calculated from the cross-validated scores are sample statistics. They provide an estimate of the true population mean and standard deviation of the model's performance. The accuracy of this estimation depends on the sample size (number of folds).

In conclusion:


While the statement provides a useful rule of thumb for understanding the variability of your model's performance based on cross-validation, it's crucial to be aware of the underlying assumptions. It's a reasonable approximation, especially with a moderate to large number of folds and when the distribution of scores is not severely non-normal. For more rigorous confidence intervals, especially when the normality assumption is questionable, techniques like bootstrapping the cross-validation scores might be considered.


From the below statements, which are all correct and incorrect? 


Oversampling leads to loss of information 

Undersampling creates synthetic data points 

Oversampling adds more data points over the existing patterns without tampering with the existing patterns 

Undersampling can be done using SMOTE  


Let's analyze each statement to determine if it's correct or incorrect:


Oversampling leads to loss of information: Incorrect. Oversampling aims to balance the class distribution by creating more instances of the minority class. It doesn't inherently discard existing data, so it doesn't directly lead to a loss of information from the original dataset. However, some oversampling techniques might create synthetic data that doesn't perfectly represent the underlying distribution, which could be seen as introducing noise rather than losing original information.


Undersampling creates synthetic data points: Incorrect. Undersampling aims to balance the class distribution by reducing the number of instances in the majority class. It achieves this by removing some of the existing data points. It does not create synthetic data. Techniques like SMOTE are used for oversampling, not undersampling.


Oversampling adds more data points over the existing patterns without tampering with the existing patterns: Partially Correct, but with nuance. Simple oversampling techniques like random oversampling just duplicate existing minority class instances. This doesn't tamper with the existing patterns directly but can lead to overfitting if not done carefully. More sophisticated oversampling techniques do create new, synthetic data points based on the existing patterns (like SMOTE), which inherently involves some form of "tampering" or generation beyond simple duplication. The statement is not entirely accurate as it doesn't cover synthetic oversampling.


Undersampling can be done using SMOTE: Incorrect. SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique) is a popular oversampling technique. It creates synthetic minority class instances by interpolating between existing minority class instances. Undersampling involves removing majority class instances.


Summary:


Oversampling leads to loss of information: Incorrect

Undersampling creates synthetic data points: Incorrect

Oversampling adds more data points over the existing patterns without tampering with the existing patterns: Incorrect (Oversimplifies and doesn't account for synthetic oversampling)

Undersampling can be done using SMOTE: Incorrect

Therefore, all of the statements are incorrect


T-Links is an undersampling method.   


T-Links (Tomek Links) are pairs of instances from different classes that are nearest neighbors of each other. The Tomek Links undersampling technique works by removing instances that form these links. The rationale is that these boundary instances might be noisy or represent ambiguous regions between classes, and removing them can help to create a clearer decision boundary and potentially improve the performance of a classifier.   


Therefore, T-Links reduces the number of instances in the dataset, which is characteristic of undersampling.


   

Which algorithm is used by SMOTE to create synthetic data points? 


K means clustering

K-nearest neighbour

Linear regression

Classification



Which of the following is used to import RAndomUnderSampler 


Imblearn.under_sampling

Imblearn.over_sampling

Sklearn.preprocessing

Sklearn.model_selection



From the below, which of the followings are true? 


We should focus only on improving the performance on the training set and the performance on the testing set will improve automatically 

With an increase in model complexity, the testing error keeps on increasing along with the training error 


Answers are 


We should focus only on improving the performance on the training set and the performance on the testing set will improve automatically: Incorrect. This describes overfitting. If you solely focus on making the model perform perfectly on the training data, it might learn the noise and specific patterns of that particular dataset, which won't generalize well to new, unseen data (the testing set). The goal is to find a balance where the model performs well on both the training and testing sets, indicating good generalization.


With an increase in model complexity, the testing error keeps on increasing along with the training error: Incorrect. While it's true that with excessive model complexity, the testing error will eventually increase (due to overfitting), the training error will typically decrease or plateau as the model becomes better at fitting the training data. The relationship between model complexity and error is often depicted as a U-shaped curve for the testing error, where it initially decreases with complexity but then starts to increase after a certain point. The training error, on the other hand, generally decreases with increasing complexity.


Should we do the hyperparameter tuning based on the performance on test data or train data?

Here's a breakdown of why:


Training Data: Tuning hyperparameters based solely on the training data will likely lead to overfitting. The model will learn the specific nuances and noise of the training set, including those influenced by the chosen hyperparameters. This results in excellent performance on the training data but poor generalization to new, unseen data.   


Test Data: The test data should be reserved for the final, unbiased evaluation of the fully trained and tuned model. If you use the test data to guide your hyperparameter tuning, you are essentially leaking information from the test set into the model selection process. This means your final evaluation on the test set will no longer be a truly independent measure of how well the model generalizes to completely new data. The reported performance will likely be overly optimistic.   


Validation Data: To properly tune hyperparameters, we split our data into three sets:


Training Set: Used to train the model with different hyperparameter configurations.

Validation Set: Used to evaluate the performance of the model with different hyperparameter configurations during the tuning process. The hyperparameters are adjusted based on the validation set performance.   

Test Set: Used only once, at the very end, to get an unbiased estimate of the model's generalization ability on completely new data.


On which of the following split of data, the model is trained, hyper parameters are tuned and final evaluation is checked ? 


Training,  validation and test 



Is it correct to say that Grid search is a computationally expensive cross validation process? 


Yes, it is correct to say that Grid Search is a computationally expensive cross-validation process.


Here's why:


Grid Search: Grid Search systematically evaluates all possible combinations of a predefined set of hyperparameter values for a given model.   


Cross-Validation: To get a robust estimate of each hyperparameter combination's performance, Grid Search typically uses cross-validation (like K-Fold). This means for every single combination of hyperparameters in the grid, the model is trained and evaluated multiple times (once for each fold of the cross-validation).   


The multiplicative effect:


The computational cost becomes significant because the number of evaluations is the product of:


The number of hyperparameter values to try for each hyperparameter.

The number of hyperparameters being tuned.

The number of folds in the cross-validation.

Example:


Let's say you have a model with:


3 hyperparameters to tune.

For each hyperparameter, you want to try 5 different values.

You are using 5-Fold cross-validation.

The total number of model training and evaluation cycles would be:


3 (hyperparameters) * 5 (values each) * 5 (folds) = 75


If you had more hyperparameters or a wider range of values to explore, or a larger number of folds, the number of evaluations would increase dramatically.   


Comparison to other methods:


Compared to other hyperparameter tuning methods like Randomized Search or Bayesian Optimization, Grid Search is generally more computationally expensive because it exhaustively searches the defined space, whereas the others are more strategic in their exploration.   


In conclusion, the systematic and exhaustive nature of evaluating every combination of hyperparameters using cross-validation makes Grid Search a computationally demanding process, especially for models with many hyperparameters or large search spaces

Friday, April 18, 2025

How does Automerging Retriever works in llama_index

You're right, the AutoMergingRetriever in LlamaIndex takes a base_retriever and a vector_store (which is part of a StorageContext). Internally, it orchestrates a multi-stage process to retrieve and potentially merge nodes, aiming for more contextually rich and relevant results. Here's a breakdown of what it does:

1. Initial Retrieval (using the base_retriever):

When you call the retrieve() method of the AutoMergingRetriever, the process begins by using the base_retriever you provided.

The base_retriever (which is typically a VectorIndexRetriever or similar) performs a standard retrieval operation based on the query. This usually involves:

Embedding the input query.

Searching the underlying vector store (associated with the base_index) for the top-k most similar node embeddings.

Returning these initial NodeWithScore objects. These nodes are generally smaller chunks of your original documents.

2. Node Embedding and Storage (using the vector_store of the AutoMergingRetriever):

The AutoMergingRetriever then takes the Node objects retrieved by the base_retriever.

Crucially, these initial nodes are embedded using the embedding model associated with the vector_store you passed to the AutoMergingRetriever (which might be the same or different from the base_retriever's embedding model).

These embedded nodes are then stored in the vector_store associated with the AutoMergingRetriever. This vector store acts as a repository for the individual chunks that can later be considered for merging. Each stored node retains its original content and metadata.

3. Auto-Merging Logic:

When a subsequent query comes in, the AutoMergingRetriever again performs a similarity search, but this time against its own vector_store (the one containing the embeddings of the initially retrieved chunks).

It retrieves a larger set of potentially relevant nodes (automerging_similarity_top_k) from this store. These retrieved nodes might overlap in content or be semantically related.

The core of the AutoMergingRetriever lies in its merging logic. It analyzes these retrieved nodes to identify candidates for merging based on:

Parent Document Relationships: If the nodes belong to the same parent document and are contiguous or closely related in the original document structure, they are strong candidates for merging.

Semantic Similarity: The retriever might also consider merging nodes that are semantically similar, even if they are not directly adjacent in the original document.

The merging process aims to create larger, more contextually complete nodes.

4. Reranking (Optional but Common):

After the merging step, the AutoMergingRetriever often employs a reranking mechanism (automerging_reranker_top_n).

It might use a more sophisticated scoring function or even a separate model to re-evaluate the relevance of the merged nodes to the original query. This helps to prioritize the most contextually relevant merged nodes.

5. Final Node Selection:

Finally, the AutoMergingRetriever returns the top-n (automerging_reranker_top_n) merged and potentially reranked NodeWithScore objects as the final retrieved nodes.

In Summary:

The AutoMergingRetriever uses the base_retriever to get an initial set of relevant small chunks. It then embeds and stores these chunks in its own vector store. For subsequent queries, it retrieves a larger set of these chunks from its store and intelligently merges them into potentially larger, more contextually rich nodes based on document structure and semantic similarity. Finally, it may rerank these merged nodes to provide the most relevant context to the query.

The StorageContext passed to the AutoMergingRetriever is crucial because it provides the underlying vector_store where the embeddings of the initial chunks are stored and searched for the merging process. The base_retriever provides the initial set of candidate chunks for this merging process.


Cross Validation Techniques

In KFold validation, how many times the model will be trained if k=5? 


The dataset is divided into k (in this case, 5) equal or approximately equal folds (subsets).   

In each of the k iterations, one fold is held out as the validation set (used to evaluate the model's performance), and the remaining k-1 folds are used as the training set (used to train the model).

Since there are 5 different folds, each fold will get a chance to be the validation set exactly once. This means there will be 5 different training sets (each consisting of the other 4 folds) used to train the model 5 separate times.   

So, with k=5, you'll train one model in each of the five iterations, resulting in a total of 5 trained models. These models are then evaluated on their respective held-out validation folds, and the performance metrics are typically averaged across the five folds to get a more robust estimate of the model's generalization ability.


 What is the effect of increasing value of k in k fold validation?


Increasing the value of k in K-Fold cross-validation has several effects on the model evaluation process:


Pros of Increasing k:


Lower Bias in Performance Estimate: With a larger k, the size of each validation fold decreases, and the size of the training set increases (approaching the size of the entire dataset). This means the model is trained on a larger portion of the data in each iteration, leading to a performance estimate that is less biased towards a specific train-test split. In the extreme case of k equaling the number of data points (Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation or LOOCV), the bias is theoretically the lowest possible.

More Robust Performance Estimate: By averaging the results across more folds, you get a more stable and less variable estimate of the model's generalization performance. The impact of a particularly "easy" or "difficult" split is reduced.   

Better Utilization of Data: Each data point is used for validation exactly once and for training k-1 times. This ensures that all the data contributes to both the training and evaluation processes.

Cons of Increasing k:


Higher Computational Cost: Increasing k directly increases the number of times the model needs to be trained and evaluated. For large datasets and complex models, this can significantly increase the computational time required for cross-validation.   

Increased Variance in Performance Estimate (for very large k): While generally reducing bias, in the extreme case of LOOCV, the validation sets are very small (single data points). The performance estimate in each fold can be highly variable and sensitive to individual data points, potentially leading to a higher variance in the overall estimate compared to a moderate k. However, for typical increases in k (e.g., from 5 to 10), the reduction in bias usually outweighs the potential increase in variance.   

Potentially Correlated Training Sets (for very large k): When k is very large, the training sets in different folds become very similar, as they only differ by one data point (in LOOCV). This can reduce the independence of the evaluations across folds, potentially providing less new information with each fold.

Longer Training Time per Fold: As the training set size increases (with larger k), the time required to train the model in each fold might also increase, further contributing to the overall computational cost.

General Guidelines:


Common Values: Values of k like 5 or 10 are commonly used and often provide a good balance between bias and variance.

Dataset Size: For larger datasets, a smaller k might be sufficient to get a reliable estimate without excessive computational cost. For smaller datasets, a larger k (or even LOOCV if computationally feasible) can be beneficial to make the most of the limited data.

Computational Resources: The available computational resources often play a significant role in choosing the value of k.

Stability of the Model: If your model is very sensitive to the specific training data, a higher k can give a more stable performance estimate.

In summary, increasing k generally leads to a less biased and more robust estimate of the model's performance but comes at the cost of increased computational time. The optimal value of k often depends on the specific dataset size, the complexity of the model, and the available computational resources. 

Cross Validation - K fold practicals - Part 2

If i have 10000 rows of data, then if k=5, what will be the test and train data in each fold?

What will be the effect of increasing k in K-fold? 

The variation across the training set will decrease

The variation across the training set will increase

The variation across the training set will be zero

The variation across the training set will be maximum

The correct answer is: The variation across the training set will decrease


Here's why:


Increasing the value of k means each training set in K-Fold validation will include more data points from the original dataset.

As the size of the training set in each fold gets closer to the size of the entire dataset, the differences (variation) between these training sets will become smaller. They will all be large subsets of the same overall data.

Think of it this way:


If k=2 (two folds), one training set has half the data, and the other has the other half. There can be significant variation between these two halves.

If k=10 (ten folds), each training set has 90% of the data. These training sets will be much more similar to each other, and thus the variation across them will be smaller.

In the extreme case of k=n (LOOCV), each training set has n-1 data points, differing by only one data point. The variation across these training sets is minimal.

Therefore, as k increases, the training sets in each fold become more alike, leading to a decrease in the variation across them.





If you have 10,000 rows of data and you're using K-Fold cross-validation with k=5, here's how the data will be split into training and test sets for each of the 5 folds:


Total number of rows: 10,000

Number of folds (k): 5

Size of each fold:


Ideally, each fold will have approximately the same number of rows. You can calculate this by dividing the total number of rows by the number of folds:


10,000 rows / 5 folds = 2,000 rows per fold


Data split in each fold:


In each of the 5 iterations (folds) of the K-Fold validation:


Test set: One fold will be used as the test set. Therefore, the test set will contain approximately 2,000 rows.


Train set: The remaining k-1 folds will be used as the training set. Therefore, the training set will contain approximately:


(k - 1) * (size of each fold) = (5 - 1) * 2,000 rows = 4 * 2,000 rows = 8,000 rows.


Summary for each of the 5 folds:


Fold 1:

Test set: ~2,000 rows

Train set: ~8,000 rows

Fold 2:

Test set: ~2,000 rows (a different set of 2,000 rows from Fold 1)

Train set: ~8,000 rows (the remaining 8,000 rows not in Fold 2's test set)

Fold 3:

Test set: ~2,000 rows (a different set)

Train set: ~8,000 rows (the remaining 8,000 rows)

Fold 4:

Test set: ~2,000 rows (a different set)

Train set: ~8,000 rows (the remaining 8,000 rows)

Fold 5:

Test set: ~2,000 rows (the final set of 2,000 rows)

Train set: ~8,000 rows (the remaining 8,000 rows)

Important Note on "Approximately":


If the total number of rows is not perfectly divisible by k, the folds might have a slightly uneven number of rows. For example, if you had 10,001 rows and k=5, some folds would have 2000 rows, and one fold would have 2001 rows. Most K-Fold implementations handle this gracefully. However, for simplicity in this explanation, we assume an even split.


In essence, with k=5 and 10,000 rows, in each of the five validation rounds, you will train your model on 8,000 rows and evaluate it on a distinct set of 2,000 rows. This process is repeated five times, ensuring that every data point is used for testing exactly once.


f 90,85,78,88,85 are the cross-validated scores then what would be the average cross-validation score?

The average score would be (90 + 85 + 78 + 88 + 85)/5 = 82.5




Sunday, April 13, 2025

Boosting Techniques - Machine Learning

Boosting is an ensemble learning technique that sequentially trains multiple weak learners (typically decision stumps or shallow trees), where each learner focuses on correcting the mistakes of the previous one.

Over time, these weak learners combine to form a strong overall model with high accuracy.

In boosting, each new model is trained to correct the errors made by the previous models.

This creates a chain of models, where each one depends on the outcome of the prior models.

As a result, boosting is inherently sequential and cannot be parallelized easily like bagging.


In boosting algorithms, each learner is trained sequentially, and the weight of the data points (or errors) is updated after each learner based on how well it performed.

XGBoost is the correct answer — it has efficient parallel computing and built-in missing value handling.

Why XGBoost?

It uses block structure for computation, which allows parallelization of tree construction.

It handles missing values automatically by learning the best direction (left/right) to send them during training.

Includes 

 In the AdaBoost model, after the first run, the weightage of data points that were predicted wrong is increased.   

True. This is a core mechanism of AdaBoost. After each weak learner is trained, the algorithm examines the data points. Those that were misclassified by the current weak learner have their weights increased. This forces the subsequent weak learners to focus more on the difficult-to-classify instances.   

 AdaBoost consists of underfitted models.   


True. AdaBoost utilizes an ensemble of weak learners. Weak learners are models that perform slightly better than random guessing, meaning they are intentionally kept simple and are often underfitted to the data on their own. The power of AdaBoost comes from combining the predictions of many such weak learners in a weighted manner. Common weak learners used in AdaBoost include decision stumps (decision trees with a single split).   

In summary:


AdaBoost iteratively trains weak learners.   

It assigns weights to each data point, increasing the weights of misclassified instances after each iteration.   

The final prediction is made by a weighted majority vote (for classification) or a weighted average (for regression) of the predictions from all the weak learners.   

The strength of AdaBoost lies in its ability to combine the outputs of these individually underfitted models to create a strong, accurate ensemble model.   


Sources and related content


Some more points about Adaboost


It builds weak learners (decision tree) with restricted depth: AdaBoost typically uses weak learners, and for decision trees, this often means trees with a very shallow depth, commonly referred to as decision stumps (depth of 1). Restricting the depth ensures the learners are weak and focus on simple patterns.


Weights of incorrectly classified points are increased: This is a fundamental mechanism of AdaBoost. After each weak learner is trained, the weights of the data points that were misclassified are increased. This makes these harder-to-classify points more influential in the training of the subsequent weak learners.


The following statements are false about AdaBoost:


It builds weak learners (decision tree) - Till a tree is fully grown: AdaBoost intentionally uses weak learners, which are models that are only slightly better than random guessing. Fully grown decision trees are typically strong learners and would not fit the AdaBoost paradigm. The algorithm relies on combining many simple, underfitted models.


Weights of incorrectly classified points are decreased: This is the opposite of how AdaBoost works. The algorithm focuses on the mistakes of previous learners by increasing the weights of misclassified points, not decreasing them.


Therefore, the true statements are:


It builds weak learners (decision tree) with restricted depth

Weights of incorrectly classified points are increased


In Adaboost, does each tree contribute equally?Do


Weighting based on performance: After each weak learner (typically a decision tree with restricted depth, like a decision stump) is trained, its performance is evaluated based on the weighted error rate.   

Alpha (Weight) Calculation: A weight (often denoted as α) is calculated for each weak learner. This weight is inversely proportional to the error rate of the learner.

Weak learners with lower error rates (i.e., they performed better on the weighted training data) are assigned higher weights (α).

Weak learners with higher error rates are assigned lower weights (α).

  

Weighted Majority Vote: For classification, the final prediction is made by a weighted majority vote of all the weak learners. The prediction of each weak learner is multiplied by its calculated weight (α), and the class with the highest weighted sum is chosen as the final prediction.   

Weighted Average: For regression, the final prediction is a weighted average of the predictions of all the weak learners, using their respective weights (α).   

In essence, the trees that are more accurate on the training data have a greater influence on the final prediction in AdaBoost. This adaptive weighting of the weak learners is a key aspect of how AdaBoost combines them into a strong learner.


  


The core idea behind the Gradient Boosting algorithm is to iteratively build an ensemble of weak learners, typically decision trees. In each iteration, the algorithm tries to:   


 Predict the residuals: Instead of directly predicting the target variable, each new weak learner is trained to predict the residual errors made by the ensemble of learners built so far. The residual is the difference between the actual target value and the current prediction of the ensemble.   


 Minimize the residuals: By training each new learner to predict the negative gradient of the loss function with respect to the current prediction (which, for squared error loss, is proportional to the residuals), the algorithm aims to correct the errors of the previous models. The predictions of the new weak learner are then added to the ensemble's predictions, effectively reducing the overall residual error.   


This process continues iteratively, with each new weak learner focusing on the errors that the previous ensemble has made.


The final prediction of the Gradient Boosting model is the sum of the predictions of all the weak learners. The contribution of each learner is often scaled by a learning rate to prevent overfitting.   



Therefore, Gradient Boosting explicitly tries to predict the residuals and progressively minimize them with each added weak learner.


The learning rate in gradient boosting algorithms is a hyperparameter that scales the contribution of each weak learner to the final ensemble. While it's common and generally recommended for the learning rate to be a small positive value, it is not strictly limited to be only between 0 and 1 in all implementations.   


Here's a more nuanced breakdown:


Typical Range and Why (0, 1]:


Shrinkage Effect: The primary purpose of a learning rate less than or equal to 1 is to shrink the impact of each individual tree. This helps to prevent overfitting by making the model learn more slowly and robustly. Each new tree makes a smaller correction to the ensemble, requiring more trees to be added for the model to converge. This controlled learning process often leads to better generalization on unseen data.

Stability: Smaller learning rates can make the training process more stable, as large corrections from individual trees can sometimes lead to oscillations or divergence.

Common Practice: In most popular gradient boosting libraries like XGBoost, LightGBM, and scikit-learn, the default and commonly tuned values for the learning rate (often called eta in XGBoost) fall within the range of 0.001 to 0.3, and rarely exceed 1.

Possibility of Values Outside (0, 1]:


Theoretical Possibility: Mathematically, there's no hard constraint in the gradient boosting algorithm itself that forces the learning rate to be strictly between 0 and 1.

Values Greater Than 1 (Less Common and Potentially Unstable):

A learning rate greater than 1 would amplify the contribution of each tree. This could lead to faster learning on the training data but significantly increases the risk of overfitting and instability. The model might jump too quickly towards potentially suboptimal solutions. Such high learning rates are rarely used in practice for standard gradient boosting.

Values Equal to 0 (No Learning): A learning rate of 0 would mean that the predictions of the new weak learners have no impact on the ensemble, and the model would not learn further after the initial weak learner.   

In summary:


While the learning rate in gradient boosting is typically and most effectively set to a small positive value between 0 and 1 (inclusive of 1, though smaller values are more common for regularization) to control the learning speed and prevent overfitting, there isn't a strict algorithmic requirement that always limits it to this range in all possible implementations. However, values outside this range, especially those greater than 1 or equal to 0, are generally not practical or recommended for standard gradient boosting.


Therefore, while the common and best practice is for the learning rate to be in (0, 1], you might encounter (though rarely) implementations or highly specific tuning scenarios where values slightly outside this range are explored, but these are exceptions rather than the rule.



Which of the following is correct with regards to XGBoost 


It can build learners parallel 

It has advantage of distributed computing 


Both of the statements are correct with regards to XGBoost:


It can build learners in parallel: XGBoost utilizes parallel processing during the construction of each tree in the boosting ensemble. While the boosting process itself is sequential (each tree builds upon the errors of the previous ones), the computation of the best split at each node of a tree is done in parallel across different features. This significantly speeds up the training process compared to traditional gradient boosting algorithms that process features sequentially.


It has the advantage of distributed computing: XGBoost is designed to be scalable and can leverage distributed computing frameworks like Apache Spark and Dask. This allows it to train on very large datasets that might not fit into the memory of a single machine. By distributing the computation across multiple nodes in a cluster, XGBoost can significantly reduce training time for massive datasets.




Which of the following predictive models do not have an option to give more weightage to a certain class for classification problems? 


Decision Tree

Random Forest

Gradient Boost

XGBoost


is Gamma a hyper parameter that specifies minimum loss reduction ?


Yes, gamma is a hyperparameter in XGBoost that specifies the minimum loss reduction required to make a further partition on a leaf node of the tree.


 It is also known by the alias min_split_loss.


Yes, gamma is a hyperparameter in XGBoost that specifies the minimum loss reduction required to make a further partition on a leaf node of the tree. It is also known by the alias min_split_loss.   


Here's a breakdown of how it works:


Loss Reduction: When XGBoost considers splitting a leaf node, it calculates the potential reduction in the loss function that the split would provide.   

Minimum Requirement: The gamma parameter sets a threshold for this loss reduction. A split will only occur if the loss reduction is greater than or equal to the value of gamma.

Regularization: A higher value of gamma makes the algorithm more conservative. It requires a larger improvement in loss before allowing a split, which can help to prevent overfitting by growing simpler trees with fewer splits.

Range: The value of gamma is non-negative and typically ranges from 0 to infinity, although in practice, it's usually tuned within a smaller range. A gamma of 0 means there's no minimum loss reduction required.



In Gradient boosting is init a hyper parameter that specifies the base estimator of the algorithm? 


The answer is yes, in some implementations of Gradient Boosting, init is a hyperparameter that specifies the base estimator used to compute the initial predictions.


Specifically, in scikit-learn's GradientBoostingClassifier and GradientBoostingRegressor, the init parameter serves this purpose.


Here's what the scikit-learn documentation says about the init parameter:


init : estimator or ‘zero’, default=None


An estimator object that is used to compute the initial predictions. init has to provide fit and predict_proba (for classification) or predict (for regression). If ‘zero’, the initial raw predictions are set to zero. By default, a DummyEstimator predicting the classes priors is used for classification and a DummyRegressor predicting the mean is used for regression.   


Therefore, you can use the init parameter to specify a different base estimator than the default (which is typically a DummyEstimator). This allows you to initialize the boosting process with the predictions of another model.   


However, it's crucial to understand the following:


The subsequent weak learners in Gradient Boosting are still decision trees (regression trees for regression, classification trees for classification). The init parameter only controls the initial predictions. Gradient Boosting works by sequentially fitting trees to the residuals (the difference between the actual values and the current predictions).   

The specified init estimator must have the required fit and predict (or predict_proba) methods.

Using a complex init estimator might not always be beneficial and could potentially increase the risk of overfitting from the start. The idea behind boosting is to start with a weak learner and iteratively improve it.   

In summary: While init in Gradient Boosting (like in scikit-learn) allows you to set a base estimator for the initial predictions, the core boosting process still relies on sequentially adding decision trees. So, it's not a hyperparameter to change the type of weak learner used in the boosting iterations themselves.


Sunday, April 6, 2025

What is Out of Bag Error OOB ?

 The Out-of-Bag (OOB) error is a method used in Random Forests (and other bagging techniques) to estimate the prediction error of the model on unseen data, without the need for a separate validation set or cross-validation.

Here's what it indicates and how it works:

How it Works:

Bootstrapping: When a Random Forest is trained, each individual decision tree is built using a bootstrap sample (random sampling with replacement) from the original training data. This means that for each tree, some data points from the original training set will be included multiple times, while others will be left out.

Out-of-Bag Samples: The data points that are not included in the bootstrap sample for a particular tree are called the out-of-bag (OOB) samples for that specific tree. Approximately one-third (around 37%) of the training data, on average, will be OOB for each tree.

Prediction on OOB Samples: For each data point in the original training set, we can identify the trees that did not use this data point during their training (i.e., the trees for which this data point was OOB). We can then use these specific trees to predict the outcome for that particular OOB data point.

Aggregation and Error Calculation:

Classification: For each data point, the prediction is made by taking a majority vote of the predictions from all the trees for which that data point was OOB. The OOB error rate is then the proportion of incorrectly classified OOB samples.

Regression: For each data point, the prediction is the average of the predictions from all the trees for which that data point was OOB. The OOB error is typically calculated as the mean squared error (MSE) or mean absolute error (MAE) between the predicted and actual values of the OOB samples.

What the OOB Error Indicates:

Estimate of Generalization Performance: The OOB error provides an unbiased estimate of how well the Random Forest model is likely to perform on new, unseen data. Because the OOB samples were not used to train the trees that predict them, they act as an internal, "free" validation set.

Model Performance without Explicit Validation: It eliminates the need to explicitly split your training data into separate training and validation sets, which can be particularly useful when you have a limited amount of data.

Hyperparameter Tuning: The OOB error can be used to tune the hyperparameters of the Random Forest, such as the number of trees (n_estimators) or the number of features to consider at each split (max_features). You can train the model with different hyperparameter settings and choose the ones that result in the lowest OOB error.

Detection of Overfitting: If the OOB error is significantly lower than the error on a truly independent test set (if you have one), it might be an indication that the model is overfitting to the training data, although the OOB error itself is generally less prone to overfitting than the error on the training data.

Feature Importance Estimation: In some implementations, the OOB error is also used to estimate feature importance. The idea is to randomly permute the values of a specific feature in the OOB samples and see how much the OOB error increases. A larger increase suggests that the feature was more important for the model's predictive accuracy.

In summary, a low OOB error generally indicates a well-performing Random Forest model that is likely to generalize well to unseen data. A high OOB error might suggest that the model is not capturing the underlying patterns in the data effectively or that the hyperparameters need to be adjusted.


Why fine-tuning does not give much of difference compare to the model before fine tuning?

The example dataset that the fine-tuning was done was the below 

train_data = [

    ("What factors contribute to a city's livability?", "How is the quality of life in a city determined?", 1),

    ("Vienna is often ranked as highly livable.", "Many surveys place Vienna among the top cities for quality of life.", 1),

    ("High healthcare standards improve a city's livability.", "Access to good medical care is a key aspect of a comfortable urban environment.", 1),

    ("A city with poor infrastructure is less livable.", "Substandard public transport negatively impacts urban living.", 1),

    ("The weather in a city affects its livability.", "Climate plays a role in how pleasant it is to live in a location.", 1),

    ("Economic growth leads to higher livability.", "A strong economy generally correlates with better living conditions.", 1),

    ("Cultural attractions enhance a city's appeal.", "Having museums and theaters makes a city more enjoyable.", 1),

    ("High crime rates decrease livability.", "Safety and security are crucial for a good quality of life.", 1),

    ("The capital of France is Paris.", "The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.", 0),  # Dissimilar topic

    ("Apples are a type of fruit.", "Cars are used for transportation.", 0), # Dissimilar topics

    ("The ocean is vast and blue.", "The mountains are tall and majestic.", 0), # Dissimilar topics

    ("Good education improves job prospects.", "Affordable housing is important for residents.", 1), # Related aspects of livability

    ("A polluted environment reduces livability.", "Clean air and water contribute to a healthy city.", 1),

    ("Job opportunities attract people to a city.", "Employment prospects are a factor in urban migration.", 1),

    ("The price of housing impacts affordability.", "Expensive real estate can make a city less accessible.", 1),

]

 while conceptually relevant, might not be diverse or large enough to show a dramatic difference in similarity scores after just a few epochs of training with a general-purpose pre-trained model like bert-base-uncased. These models already have a broad understanding of language.

To demonstrate a significant difference, you need a dataset that:

Is Specifically Focused: Targets a particular type of semantic similarity or relationship that the base model might not perfectly capture.

Has Clear Positive and Negative Examples: Provides unambiguous pairs of similar and dissimilar sentences.

Is Reasonably Sized: Contains enough data for the model to learn the specific nuances of the task.

Here are some well-established datasets commonly used for training and evaluating sentence embedding models, particularly for Semantic Textual Similarity (STS), which would likely show a more noticeable difference after fine-tuning:

1. STS Benchmark (STS-B):

Description: A widely used dataset comprising sentence pairs drawn from news headlines, video and image captions, and natural language inference data. Each pair is annotated with a similarity score from 0 to 5 (often normalized to 0 to 1).   

Why it's good: Specifically designed for evaluating semantic similarity. The annotations are human-generated and high quality.   

How to use: You can easily load this dataset using the datasets library from Hugging Face:

from datasets import load_dataset

sts_dataset = load_dataset("sentence-transformers/stsb", split="train")

train_data_sts = []

for example in sts_dataset:

    train_data_sts.append((example['sentence1'], example['sentence2'], example['score'] / 5.0)) # Normalize score

Semantic Textual Similarity (STS) datasets from SemEval:

Description: A collection of yearly datasets from the SemEval (Semantic Evaluation Exercises) competition, focusing on STS. These cover various text domains.

Why it's good: Well-established and diverse, allowing you to test generalization across different types of text.

How to use: These can also be accessed through the datasets library, often as separate datasets (e.g., glue, config 'stsb' includes STS-B which is a subset). You might need to explore the datasets library to find specific SemEval STS datasets if needed.

Quora Question Pairs:

Description: A dataset of question pairs from the Quora platform, labeled as duplicates or non-duplicates.

Why it's good: Focuses on semantic similarity in the context of questions, which can be useful for tasks like question answering or FAQ matching.   

How to use: Available through the datasets library:

qqp_dataset = load_dataset("quora", split="train")


train_data_qqp = []

for example in qqp_dataset:

    if example['is_duplicate'] is not None:

        train_data_qqp.append((example['question1'], example['question2'], float(example['is_duplicate'])))


Saturday, April 5, 2025

What is Bagging ( Bootstrap Aggregating) - Part 1

 Bootstrap sampling: Bagging involves creating multiple subsets of the original training data by sampling with replacement. This means that some data points may be included multiple times in a single subset, while others may be left out.

Aggregation: After training a separate base learner (e.g., a decision tree) on each of these bootstrap samples, the predictions of these learners are aggregated. For classification, this is typically done by majority voting. For regression, it's usually done by averaging.

Let's look at why the other options are not the primary definition of Bagging:

decreasing impurity: Decreasing impurity is a goal within individual decision tree algorithms (like CART) when deciding how to split nodes. While Bagging often uses decision trees as base learners, decreasing impurity is a mechanism within the individual trees, not the core concept of Bagging itself.

Cross-Validation: Cross-validation is a technique used for evaluating the performance of a model by splitting the data into multiple folds for training and validation. It's a model evaluation technique, not the definition of Bagging. Bagging can be evaluated using cross-validation.

Sampling with replacement: While sampling with replacement is a key part of the bootstrap sampling step in Bagging, it doesn't encompass the entire Bagging process. The aggregation step is equally crucial.

The true statements about Bagging are:

Makes the model more robust: By training multiple models on different subsets of the data and aggregating their predictions, Bagging reduces the impact of1 noisy data points and outliers, leading to a more stable and reliable model.   

1.azrilhafizi.medium.com

2. azrilhafizi.medium.com

Guards you against overfitting the model to original data: The bootstrap sampling process introduces randomness, and the aggregation step smooths out the predictions. This reduces the variance of the model and makes it less likely to memorize the training data, thus mitigating overfitting.

Follows parallel model building: Each base learner in a Bagging ensemble is trained independently on its respective bootstrap sample. This allows for parallel training, which can significantly reduce the overall training time, especially with large datasets and multiple computing resources.

The false statement is:

Follows sequential model building: Sequential model building is a characteristic of boosting techniques (like AdaBoost and Gradient Boosting), where each subsequent model tries to correct the errors made by the previous ones. Bagging, on the other hand, builds its models in parallel.

If ps is the probability of choosing an observation, then which of the following are true for sampling with replacement? 

p is different for some observations

p remains same at each stage for all observations

p depends on the number of columns

p depends on the number base estimators

For sampling with replacement, where an observation is put back into the population after being selected, the probability of choosing any specific observation remains the same at each stage of the sampling process.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

p is different for some observations: In simple random sampling with replacement, each observation has an equal chance of being selected at every draw. Therefore, the probability p is the same for all observations.

p depends on the number of columns: The probability of selecting an observation in the sampling process depends on the number of observations (the population size), not the number of columns (features) in the dataset.

p depends on the number of base estimators: The probability of choosing an observation during the sampling process in Bagging is determined by the bootstrap sampling method applied to the original dataset, independent of the number of base estimators that will be trained.

Therefore, the correct statement is:

p remains the same at each stage for all observations

What is meant by Observation here. Is it sample ? 

Yes, in this context, an observation directly refers to a sample from your dataset.

Here's why:

Dataset Structure: In machine learning and statistics, your dataset is typically organized into rows and columns. Each row represents a single instance or observation of the phenomenon you are studying. These rows are also often referred to as samples or data points.

Sampling with Replacement: When you perform bootstrap sampling in Bagging, you are repeatedly selecting rows (which are your observations or samples) from your original training dataset, with the possibility of selecting the same row multiple times.

Probability of Choosing: The probability ps refers to the chance of selecting a specific row (a specific observation/sample) from the dataset during each draw of the bootstrap sampling process.

Therefore, in the context of Bagging and the question about sampling with replacement, an "observation" is indeed synonymous with a "sample" or a "data point" from your training dataset.

On an average, what percentage of samples get selected in sampling with replacement? 

95%

100%

38%

63%

Probability of Not Being Selected: In a single draw with replacement from a dataset of size n, the probability of a specific observation not being selected is (1 - 1/n).

Probability of Not Being Selected in n Draws: When you perform n draws (to create a bootstrap sample of the same size as the original dataset), the probability that a specific observation is never selected is (1 - 1/n)^n.

Limit as n Approaches Infinity: As the number of samples n becomes large, the value of (1 - 1/n)^n approaches 1/e (Euler's number), which is approximately 0.368.

Probability of Being Selected: Therefore, the probability that a specific observation is selected at least once in a bootstrap sample is 1 - (1 - 1/n)^n, which approaches 1 - 0.368 = 0.632.

So, on average, approximately 63.2% of the original samples will be present in a bootstrap sample (due to some samples being selected multiple times and others not at all). The closest option provided is 63%.


What are the problems of Decision Trees of the below which can be overcome by random forest? 

Overfitting

Instability due to changes in data

Interpretability

Computational complexity


What are the problems of Decision Trees of the below which can be overcome by random forest? 

Overfitting

Instability due to changes in data

Interpretability

Computational complexity

Based on the common problems associated with Decision Trees, the issues that Random Forests effectively overcome are:

Overfitting: Decision Trees, especially if grown to a large depth, tend to overfit the training data. They learn the noise and specific details of the training set, leading to poor generalization on unseen data. Random Forests mitigate overfitting by creating an ensemble of many trees, each trained on a random subset of the data and a random subset of features. The final prediction is an aggregation of the predictions from all the trees, which reduces the variance and makes the model more robust.   

Instability due to changes in data: Decision Trees can be highly sensitive to small variations in the training data. A slight change can lead to a completely different tree structure. Random Forests are more stable because the final prediction is based on the consensus of many trees. The impact of a single noisy or slightly different data point is less likely to drastically alter the overall prediction.   

While Random Forests offer significant improvements in these areas, they generally do not inherently solve the following problems of Decision Trees:

Interpretability: Decision Trees are relatively easy to interpret as their decision-making process can be visualized as a tree with clear rules. Random Forests, being an ensemble of many trees, are much harder to interpret. While you can get feature importance scores, understanding the exact decision path for a particular prediction becomes complex. In fact, Random Forests often sacrifice some interpretability for better predictive performance.   

Computational complexity: While individual decision trees can be relatively fast to train and predict with (depending on their depth and the size of the data), Random Forests, as they involve training multiple trees, are generally more computationally expensive in terms of training time and memory usage. The prediction time might also be slightly higher as it involves aggregating predictions from multiple trees. However, the parallel nature of building the trees in a Random Forest can help reduce the overall training time on multi-core processors.   

Therefore, the primary problems of Decision Trees that are overcome by Random Forests are Overfitting and Instability due to changes in data.

In random forest, to get different n-models with the same algorithm, we can use which one of the below 

Bootstrap aggregation

Cross Validation

Normalization

None of These

The correct answer is Bootstrap aggregation.


Here's why:

Bootstrap aggregation (Bagging): This is the core technique used in Random Forests to create multiple models. It involves:

Bootstrap sampling: Creating multiple subsets of the original training data by sampling with replacement. Each subset is used to train a different decision tree.

Aggregation: Combining the predictions of all the individual trees (e.g., through majority voting for classification or averaging for regression) to make the final prediction.

Let's look at why the other options are incorrect:

Cross Validation: This is a technique used to evaluate the performance of a model by training and testing it on different subsets of the data. It doesn't inherently create multiple models within the Random Forest algorithm itself.

Normalization: This is a data preprocessing technique used to scale features to a similar range. It's not directly involved in the process of creating multiple models in a Random Forest.

None of These: Since Bootstrap aggregation is the method used, this option is incorrect.

Random forest randomly pick as subset of independent variables for each node's split. If m is the size of the subset and M is the total number of independent variables, where m generally less than M is this correct? 

Yes, this is correct. In Random Forests:

At each node in each decision tree, the algorithm randomly selects a subset of m independent variables (features) from the total M available independent variables.

The best split for that node is then chosen from only these m randomly selected variables.

Typically, the size of this subset m is significantly smaller than the total number of variables M (m << M). Common choices for m are the square root of M (for classification) or M/3 (for regression), but it can be tuned.

This random selection of features at each split is a key mechanism in Random Forests that contributes to the diversity among the individual trees. By not considering all the features for every split, the trees become less correlated, which in turn helps to reduce the variance of the ensemble and prevents overfitting.

Do random forest need to be pruned to get good prediction? If so why? 

While individual decision trees within a Random Forest are often grown to their full depth without explicit pruning, the Random Forest as an ensemble achieves good prediction and avoids overfitting through its inherent mechanisms, making explicit pruning of individual trees often unnecessary and sometimes even detrimental.   

Here's a breakdown of why explicit pruning is generally not needed in Random Forests for good prediction:

Bagging (Bootstrap Aggregation): Each tree is trained on a different bootstrap sample of the original data. This introduces randomness and ensures that each tree sees a slightly different perspective of the data. This process itself helps to reduce overfitting by training on multiple variations of the dataset.   

Random Feature Subsampling: At each node split, only a random subset of features is considered. This further decorrelates the trees, making them less likely to overfit to specific noise in the data. Each tree focuses on different aspects of the features.   

Ensemble Averaging/Voting: The final prediction is made by averaging the predictions of all the regression trees or by majority voting for classification trees. This aggregation process smooths out the individual errors and reduces the variance of the overall model, which is a key aspect of preventing overfitting.   

Why explicit pruning is often not performed and can be counterproductive:

Bias-Variance Tradeoff: Individual, unpruned decision trees tend to have low bias (they can fit the training data very well) but high variance (they are sensitive to noise in the training data). Random Forests leverage this by combining many high-variance, low-bias trees. The aggregation reduces the variance significantly, leading to a good overall bias-variance tradeoff.   

Loss of Diversity: Pruning individual trees might make them more similar to each other, reducing the diversity within the ensemble. This loss of diversity can weaken the power of the ensemble to generalize well.

Computational Cost: While pruning can reduce the complexity of a single tree, performing pruning on every tree in a large Random Forest can add significant computational overhead.

However, there are some scenarios where controlling the growth of individual trees (which can be seen as a form of pre-pruning) might be beneficial:

Computational Constraints: If you have extremely large datasets and building very deep trees is computationally prohibitive, you might limit the maximum depth or the minimum number of samples per leaf.   

Very Noisy Data: In cases with extremely high levels of noise, limiting tree growth might offer a slight improvement in generalization by preventing individual trees from fitting the noise too closely.

In conclusion:

While the individual decision trees in a Random Forest are typically grown without explicit pruning, the ensemble's inherent mechanisms of bagging and random feature subsampling effectively prevent overfitting and lead to good predictive performance. Explicitly pruning individual trees is generally not necessary and can sometimes reduce the effectiveness of the Random Forest by decreasing the diversity of the ensemble. The focus in Random Forests is on building a diverse set of potentially overfit individual trees and then letting the aggregation process create a robust and well-generalizing model.  

Sources and related content

In a classification setting, for a new test data point, the final prediction by a random forest is done by taking which one of the below ? 

average of individual predictions

mode of the individual predictions

minimum of individual predictions

median of individual predictions

In a classification setting, for a new test data point, the final prediction by a random forest is done by taking the mode of the individual predictions while in a regression setting, for a new test data point, the final prediction by a random forest is done by taking the average of individual predictions.

What is stratify in sklearn 

In train_test_split() from sklearn.model_selection, the stratify parameter ensures that the proportions of classes (labels) are the same in both the training and testing sets as in the original dataset.

This is especially useful when dealing with imbalanced datasets, to prevent the train/test split from introducing further class imbalance.

from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(

    X, y, test_size=0.2, stratify=y, random_state=42

)

Here, stratify=y ensures that the distribution of labels in y is maintained in both training and testing sets.

What is significance of class_weight in Random Forest 

class_weight is used in Random Forest (and other classifiers like Logistic Regression, SVM, etc.) to handle class imbalance by assigning more importance (weight) to the minority class.

From the below which all hyperparameters are tunable in Random forest? 


max_depth

max_features

min_samples_split

min_samples_leaf

max_depth


Controls the maximum depth of each decision tree.

Prevents overfitting if set properly.

✅ Tunable

max_features


The number of features to consider when looking for the best split.

Can be a float, int, "sqrt", "log2", etc.

✅ Tunable

min_samples_split


The minimum number of samples required to split an internal node.

Higher values can prevent overfitting.

✅ Tunable

min_samples_leaf


The minimum number of samples required to be at a leaf node.

Helps control tree complexity.

✅ Tunable

Thursday, April 3, 2025

What are Late Interaction Models and Cross Encoders

Late Interaction models are a class of models used in the MTEB (Massive Text Embedding Benchmark) that differ significantly from traditional bi-encoder models. Instead of encoding each sentence or passage into a fixed-length embedding independently and then comparing those embeddings, Late Interaction models perform a more fine-grained, token-level interaction between the two input texts before generating a final similarity score.   


Here's a breakdown:

Late Interaction Models:


Token-Level Interactions:

They process the two input texts together, allowing for direct comparisons between individual tokens or subword units.

This enables the model to capture more nuanced relationships and dependencies between the words in the two texts.

Increased Accuracy:

By considering the interactions at a granular level, Late Interaction models often achieve higher accuracy on tasks like semantic textual similarity (STS) and retrieval compared to bi-encoders.

Computational Cost:

The trade-off is that they are generally more computationally expensive, as they require processing the entire pair of texts together. This makes them less suitable for large-scale similarity searches where pre-computing and storing embeddings is crucial.

Example Architectures:

Models that use cross-encoders fall into this category. They take a pair of sentences as input and output a similarity score.

MaxSim Operation:


The MaxSim operation is a specific technique used within some Late Interaction models to compute similarity between embeddings. It's designed to capture the maximum similarity between individual elements of the two embeddings. Here's how it works:   


Pairwise Similarity:

Given two embeddings, A and B, the MaxSim operation computes the pairwise similarity between all elements of A and all elements of B.   

The similarity metric used is typically cosine similarity.   

Maximum Similarity:

For each element in A, the maximum similarity score with any element in B is selected.   

Similarly, for each element in B, the maximum similarity score with any element in A is selected.

Aggregation:

The resulting maximum similarity scores are then aggregated (e.g., averaged) to produce a final similarity score between the two embeddings.   

In essence:


The MaxSim operation aims to find the most similar parts of the two embeddings and use those to determine the overall similarity. This can be particularly useful when dealing with sentences or passages that have overlapping but not identical vocabulary.


Why MaxSim?


Captures Local Similarity:

It can capture local similarities between parts of the embeddings, even if the overall embeddings are not very similar.   

Robust to Word Order Variations:

It is somewhat robust to word order variations, as it focuses on finding the most similar elements regardless of their position.

Improved Accuracy:

In some cases, it has been shown to improve accuracy compared to simply computing the cosine similarity between the entire embeddings.

In the context of MTEB:


When you see Late Interaction models being evaluated in MTEB, understand that they are working by comparing the two sentences to be compared within the same model, and the MaxSim operation is a way that some of those models compute the final similarity score.

What do CrossEncoder do in SentenceTransformers

In Sentence Transformers, a CrossEncoder is a model architecture designed for tasks where you need to compare pairs of sentences or text passages to determine their relationship. It's particularly useful for tasks like:


Semantic Textual Similarity (STS): Determining how similar two sentences are in meaning.   

Re-ranking: Given a query and a list of documents, re-ordering the documents based on their relevance to the query.   

Here's a breakdown of what a CrossEncoder does and how it differs from a SentenceTransformer (bi-encoder):

Key Differences Between CrossEncoders and Bi-Encoders:

Bi-Encoders (SentenceTransformers):

Encode each sentence or text passage independently into a fixed-length vector (embedding).   

Calculate the similarity between two sentences by comparing their embeddings (e.g., using cosine similarity).

Efficient for large-scale similarity searches because you can pre-compute and store embeddings.

Cross-Encoders:

Take a pair of sentences or text passages as input and process them together.   

Produce a single output score that represents the relationship between the two inputs.   

Generally more accurate than bi-encoders for pairwise comparison tasks.   

Slower than bi-encoders because they require processing each pair of sentences individually.

How CrossEncoders Work:

Concatenation:

The two input sentences are concatenated (often with a special separator token like [SEP]).

Transformer Processing:

The concatenated input is fed into a Transformer-based model (e.g., BERT, RoBERTa).

Output Score:

The model produces a single output score, typically a value between 0 and 1, that represents the similarity or relevance between the two input sentences.   

For example, in a STS task, a score of 1 indicates high similarity, and a score of 0 indicates low similarity.

Use Cases:

Re-ranking Search Results: When you have a large set of potentially relevant documents, a cross-encoder can be used to re-rank the top-k results from a bi-encoder search, improving accuracy.   

Question Answering: Cross-encoders can be used to determine the relevance of candidate answer passages to a given question.   

Duplicate Question Detection: Identifying duplicate questions in a forum or online platform.   

Code Example (using Sentence Transformers):

from sentence_transformers import CrossEncoder

model = CrossEncoder('cross-encoder/stsb-roberta-large')

sentence_pairs = [

    ('A man is eating food.', 'A man is eating a meal.'),

    ('A man is eating food.', 'The food is being eaten by a man.'),

    ('A man is eating food.', 'A man is playing a guitar.'),

]

scores = model.predict(sentence_pairs)

for pair, score in zip(sentence_pairs, scores):

    print(f"Sentence Pair: {pair}, Score: {score}"


In summary:

CrossEncoders provide high accuracy for pairwise text comparison tasks by processing sentence pairs together, but they are computationally more expensive than bi-encoders. They are most useful when accuracy is critical and you can afford the extra processing time.   



Tuesday, April 1, 2025

What is CLIP?

CLIP (Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training) is a foundational Deep Learning Model by OpenAI that connects images and their natural language descriptions

While traditional deep learning systems for these kinds of problems (connecting text and images) have revolutionized the world of Computer Vision, there are some key problems that we all face.

It is very labor-intensive to label big datasets for supervised learning that are required to scale a state-of-the-art model.

Strictly supervised learning restricts the model to a single task, and they are not good at multiple tasks.

The reason they are not good at multiple tasks is that

1) Datasets are very costly, so it is difficult to get labeled datasets for multiple tasks that can scale a deep learning model.

2) Since it is strictly supervised learning, hence the model learns a narrow set of visual concepts; standard vision models are good at one task and one task only. An example of this can be a very well-trained ResNet-101, a very good Deep Learning model, while it performs really well on the simple ImageNet dataset, as soon as the task deviates a little bit to sketch, it starts performing really poorly.

CLIP is one of the most notable and impactful works done in multimodal learning.

Multimodal learning attempts to model the combination of different modalities of data, often arising in real-world applications. An example of multi-modal data is data that combines text (typically represented as discrete word count vectors) with imaging data consisting of pixel intensities and annotation tags. As these modalities have fundamentally different statistical properties, combining them is non-trivial, which is why specialized modeling strategies and algorithms are required. (Definition taken from Wikipedia)

In easy words, we can explain multimodal deep learning as a field of artificial intelligence that focuses on developing algorithms and models that can process and understand multiple types of data, such as text, images, and audio, unlike traditional models that can only deal with a single type of data.

Multimodal deep learning is like teaching a robot to understand different things at the same time. Just like how we can see a picture and read a description to understand what’s happening in the picture, a robot can also do the same thing.

The way that CLIP is designed is very simple yet very effective. It uses contrastive learning which is one of the main techniques that can calculate the similarities. Originally it was used to calculate the similarities between images.

For example, let’s say the robot sees a picture of a dog, but it doesn’t know what kind of dog it is. Multimodal deep learning can help the robot understand what kind of dog it is by also reading a description of the dog, like “This is a Golden Retriever”. By looking at the picture and reading the description, the robot can learn what a Golden Retriever looks like, and use that information to recognize other Golden Retrievers in the future.


Hugging face Transformers library for Image embeddings

Hot to use the Hugging Face Transformers library with AutoImageProcessor and ViTModel (or any other Vision Transformer model) to extract image embeddings. Your provided code snippet is a valid way to achieve this.

Here's a breakdown of why it works and some additional considerations:

Explanation of Your Code:

Load Pre-trained Image Processor and Model:

AutoImageProcessor.from_pretrained("google/vit-large-patch16-224-in21k"): Loads the pre-trained image processor associated with the specified Vision Transformer model. This processor handles image resizing, normalization, and other necessary transformations.

ViTModel.from_pretrained("google/vit-large-patch16-224-in21k"): Loads the pre-trained Vision Transformer model itself.

Prepare Input Image:

inputs = image_processor(test_image, return_tensors='pt'): Processes the input image (test_image) using the loaded image processor and converts it into PyTorch tensors.

Generate Embeddings:


with torch.no_grad(): outputs = model(**inputs): Runs the Vision Transformer model on the processed input image to generate the output. torch.no_grad() disables gradient calculations, which are not needed for inference.

embedding = outputs.last_hidden_state: Extracts the last hidden state from the model's output. This hidden state represents the image embedding.

embedding = embedding[:, 0, :].squeeze(1): Selects the class token embedding (the first token) and removes the unnecessary dimension. This class token embedding is commonly used as the image-level embedding.

Embedding Shape:


print('embedding shape: ', embedding.shape): Prints the shape of the generated embedding.

Advantages of Using Hugging Face Transformers:


Ease of Use: Hugging Face Transformers simplifies the process of loading and using pre-trained models.

Unified API: The library provides a consistent API for working with various models.

Large Model Repository: Hugging Face Hub hosts a vast collection of pre-trained models.

Integration with PyTorch and TensorFlow: The library supports both PyTorch and TensorFlow.

Important Notes:


Dependencies: Make sure you have the transformers and torch libraries installed.

GPU Acceleration: If you have a GPU, ensure that PyTorch is configured to use it for faster processing.

Image Input: The test_image variable should be a PIL Image object or a NumPy array representing the image.

Embedding Dimension: The embedding dimension will vary depending on the specific Vision Transformer model you use.

Model Selection: You can use other Vision Transformer models from the Hugging Face Hub by changing the model identifier (e.g., "google/vit-base-patch16-224-in21k").

Batching: If you want to process multiple images, you can batch them together using the image processor.

Tensorflow: The code can be modified to use tensorflow.



from transformers import AutoImageProcessor, ViTModel

import torch

from PIL import Image


# Load image

image_path = "your_image.jpg" #Replace with your image path.

test_image = Image.open(image_path).convert("RGB")


# Load pre-trained image processor and model

image_processor = AutoImageProcessor.from_pretrained("google/vit-large-patch16-224-in21k")

model = ViTModel.from_pretrained("google/vit-large-patch16-224-in21k")


# prepare input image

inputs = image_processor(test_image, return_tensors='pt')

print('input shape: ', inputs['pixel_values'].shape)


with torch.no_grad():

    outputs = model(**inputs)


embedding = outputs.last_hidden_state

embedding = embedding[:, 0, :].squeeze(1)

print('embedding shape: ', embedding.shape)


#Use the embedding variable for similarity search.

Tuesday, March 25, 2025

What is Cohere rerank

 The Rerank API endpoint, powered by the Rerank models, is a simple and very powerful tool for semantic search. Given a query and a list of documents, Rerank indexes the documents from most to least semantically relevant to the query.


Get Started

Example with Texts

In the example below, we use the Rerank API endpoint to index the list of documents from most to least relevant to the query "What is the capital of the United States?".


Request


In this example, the documents being passed in are a list of strings:



import cohere

co = cohere.ClientV2()

query = "What is the capital of the United States?"

docs = [

    "Carson City is the capital city of the American state of Nevada. At the 2010 United States Census, Carson City had a population of 55,274.",

    "The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is a group of islands in the Pacific Ocean that are a political division controlled by the United States. Its capital is Saipan.",

    "Charlotte Amalie is the capital and largest city of the United States Virgin Islands. It has about 20,000 people. The city is on the island of Saint Thomas.",

    "Washington, D.C. (also known as simply Washington or D.C., and officially as the District of Columbia) is the capital of the United States. It is a federal district. The President of the USA and many major national government offices are in the territory. This makes it the political center of the United States of America.",

    "Capital punishment has existed in the United States since before the United States was a country. As of 2017, capital punishment is legal in 30 of the 50 states. The federal government (including the United States military) also uses capital punishment.",

]

results = co.rerank(

    model="rerank-v3.5", query=query, documents=docs, top_n=5

)


{

  "id": "97813271-fe74-465d-b9d5-577e77079253",

  "results": [

    {

      "index": 3, // "Washington, D.C. (also known as simply Washington or D.C., and officially as the District of Columbia) ..."

      "relevance_score": 0.9990564

    },

    {

      "index": 4, // "Capital punishment has existed in the United States since before the United States was a country. As of 2017 ..."

      "relevance_score": 0.7516481

    },

    {

      "index": 1, // "The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is a group of islands in the Pacific Ocean that are a political division ..."

      "relevance_score": 0.08882029

    },

    {

      "index": 0, // "Carson City is the capital city of the American state of Nevada. At the 2010 United States Census, Carson City had a ..."

      "relevance_score": 0.058238626

    },

    {

      "index": 2, // ""Charlotte Amalie is the capital and largest city of the United States Virgin Islands. It has about 20,000 people ..."

      "relevance_score": 0.019946935

    }

  ],

  "meta": {

    "api_version": {

      "version": "2"

    },

    "billed_units": {

      "search_units": 1

    }

  }

}


Multilingual Reranking

Cohere’s Rerank models have been trained for performance across 100+ languages.


When choosing the model, please note the following language support:


Rerank 3.0: Separate English-only and multilingual models (rerank-english-v3.0 and rerank-multilingual-v3.0)

Rerank 3.5: A single multilingual model (rerank-v3.5)

The following table provides the list of languages supported by the Rerank models. Please note that performance may vary across languages.